coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1974 respectively and live in Adana.
5.  On 17 January 2002 the applicants were placed in detention on remand on suspicion of aiding an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 22 January 2002 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants before the Adana State Security Court.
6.  On 22 March 2002 the applicants were released pending trial. Subsequently, on 22 May 2003 the Adana State Security Court acquitted them of all charges.
7.  On 11 August 2003 the applicants applied to the Adana Assize Court, seeking compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466, pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
8.  On 11 December 2003 the judge rapporteur at the Adana Assize Court heard both applicants, who indicated that they had been deprived of their income as a result of the unlawful detention.
9.  On 30 November and 1 December 2004, respectively, the Adana Assize Court awarded each applicant 783,050,956 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 443 euros at the time). The Court of Cassation upheld those judgments on 19 April and 2 May 2005, respectively. The final decisions were served on the applicants on 7 June and 20 July 2005 respectively.
6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived in Vetluga, Nizhniy Novgorod Region.
7.  By a judgment of 23 September 2002 the Vetluga District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region (“the District Court”) granted in part the applicant’s claim for recovery of unpaid military allowance and awarded him 224,926 Russian roubles (RUB) to be recovered from military unit 3761.
8.  The judgment became final on 4 October 2002 and shortly thereafter the applicant obtained a writ of execution. Between September 2004 and November 2005 the Departments of the Federal Treasury of the Chechen Republic and of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania returned the enforcement documents to the applicant on three occasions without enforcement due to his failure to submit his bank account details and then due to re-organisation of the debtor.
9.  By a decision of 10 October 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant’s request and changed the method and order of enforcement of the judgment of 23 September 2002, replacing the defunct debtor with the Ministry of the Interior of Russia.
10.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution concerning the decision of 10 October 2006 to the head office of the bailiffs’ service in Moscow in November 2006. It appears from the correspondence and the applicant’s submissions that the writ was subsequently lost.
11.  On 19 November 2007 the applicant died.
12.  By a decision of 15 September 2008 the District Court ruled that the deceased applicant was to be succeeded by his mother, Natalya Vyacheslavovna Zintsova.
13.  According to Ms Zintsova, in May 2010 she was contacted by a representative of the Ministry of the Interior who explained to her that she was to obtain a copy of the lost writ of execution at the trial court and forward it to the authorities to enable further enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 30 August 2010 the Chief Command Office of the Internal Armed Forces of the Ministry of the Interior informed that the debtor was ready to pay the due amount provided that they received the pertinent documents, including the writ of execution.
15.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s mother had refused to obtain a copy of the writ of execution from the trial court despite the authorities’ repeated invitations thereto, convinced that the award could be obtained only through the proceedings at the Court. Ms Zintsova did not dispute this allegation.
16.  The judgment of 23 September 2002, as amended on 10 October 2006, remains unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mykolayivka.
5.  On 10 September 1993 the applicant’s husband was killed in a traffic accident.
6.  On 5 June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Slavyansk Court against the companies D. and Y. seeking compensation for damage caused by the death of her husband.
7.  On 6 December 2000 the court rejected the applicant’s claims.
8.  On 8 February 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court for fresh consideration.
9.  On 16 June 2004 the court found in part for the applicant.
10.  On 21 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
11.  On 19 November 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.
12.  On 28 April 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration pursuant to legislative amendments of 22 February 2007 aimed at accelerating cassation proceedings.
13.  On 14 August 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing in the case.
14.  On 28 August 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the judgments in the case and rejected the applicant’s claims as lodged out of time.
15.  According to the Government, out of thirty court hearings scheduled in the applicant’s case two were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear, seventeen were adjourned due to failure to appear of the respondents’ representatives, two were adjourned due to witnesses’ failure to appear, one hearing was adjourned due to illness of the court’s secretary, one hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s illness, two hearings were adjourned due to the judge’s vacations, one hearing was adjourned due to the expiration of the judge’s term of office. On five occasions the courts sent warnings to the companies D. and Y. concerning their representatives’ failure to appear at the court hearings.
16.  The applicant disagreed in part with the Government’s submissions. In particular, she contended that the court hearings in her case had been adjourned only due to the respondents’ failure to appear.
5.  On 20 April 2000 the applicants’ brother died in a car accident.
6.  On 2 April 2002 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana District Court seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants also requested exemption from paying the court fees.
7.  On 30 April 2002 the court asked the applicants to complete their request for an exemption from obligation to pay the court fees. After the request was completed, on 12 September 2002, the court upheld it on 30 October 2002.
8.  The first hearing was held on 17 March 2005.
9.  On 25 April 2005 the court held another hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicants’ claim was served on the applicants on 1 June 2005.
10.  The applicants appealed on 13 June 2005. On 30 November 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicants’ appeal in part and remitted the case for re-examination.
11.  On 3 April 2006 the applicants withdrew the claim. On 19 May 2006 a decision on termination of proceedings was issued.
12.  On 19 February and 6 March 2009 respectively, the respondent Government were given notice of the applications. The Government were asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present cases, which would enable the applicants to avail themselves of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney’s Office.
13.  Subsequently, on 6 May 2009, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present cases since the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed in the impugned domestic proceedings. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicants a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnytsya.
5.  On 8 May 1998 he lodged a claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the S. enterprise in a consumer dispute between them.
6.  On 1 February 2000 the above court delivered a judgment. On 28 March 2000 the Vinnytsya Regional Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination.
7.  By a judgment of 20 November 2002, the Leninskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
8.  On 21 April[1] and 5 May 2003, respectively, the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Leninskyy Court requested the applicant to lodge his appeal against the above judgment in accordance with the procedural requirements. On 4 June 2003, following his failure to do so, the Leninskyy Court returned the appeal unexamined.
9.  On 12 February 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 4 June 2003.
10.  On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 12 February 2004 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh examination, which on 6 April 2007 upheld the ruling of 4 June 2003.
11.  On 21 June 2007 the Supreme Court requested the applicant to lodge his appeal in cassation against the ruling of 6 April 2007 in accordance with the procedural requirements, following which on 6 August 2007 it refused to grant leave to the appeal.
12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s requests. The applicant disagreed stating that he had been absent from eight hearings because he had not been informed of them. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by approximately four months. Twelve further hearings were adjourned due to the other party’s, expert’s or witnesses’ failure to appear, absence of the judge or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted in total for about one year.
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Dolný Kubín.
6.  On 24 June 2003 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date.
7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.
8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court.
9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.
10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody.
11.  On 25 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 and the Supreme Court’s refusal to release him were both unlawful.
12.  On 30 March 2006 the applicant was released.
13.  On 14 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 had been violated in that there had been no judicial decision extending his detention after 24 January 2005 (judgment I. ÚS 217/05). There existed no justification for that situation. Reference was made to the Constitutional Court’s judgments I. ÚS 6/02 and I. ÚS 204/05 (see paragraphs 23-28 below).
14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed his claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) its finding as such provided appropriate redress to the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pavlograd.
6.  In June 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against Oranta State Insurance Company in the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskyy Court”).
7.  On 18 April 2005 the court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated.
8.  On 1 September 2005 and 18 May 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively.
9.  In June 2003 the applicant also instituted proceedings against her former employer, the local police department, seeking recovery of some retirement-related and other payments.
10.  On 10 May 2005 the Babushkinskyy Court found against her.
11.  On 17 November 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It stated in the operative part that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Higher Administrative Court within one month.
12.  The applicant appealed in cassation.
13.  On 3 February 2006 the Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction to consider her appeal in cassation on the ground that the case was of a “civil” rather than an “administrative” nature and therefore the Supreme Court was the correct court of cassation.
14.  The applicant resubmitted her appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court. On 5 June 2006 the latter, referring to Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Justice, declined jurisdiction asserting that, in fact, the Higher Administrative Court was the appropriate forum for the case.
4.  The applicant company, Bazalt Impeks limited liability company, is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Svitlovodsk.
5.  In June 2006 an IT company lodged a claim with the Kirovograd Regional Commercial Court against the applicant company seeking the cancellation of a contract and return of property.
6.  By a decision of 26 July 2006, the court found against the applicant company. On 2 October 2006 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
7.  By a decision of 12 December 2006, the Higher Commercial Court, upon the applicant company’s appeal, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and found in favour of the applicant company.
8.  On 20 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon the IT company’s cassation appeal, quashed the ruling of the Higher Commercial Court on the ground that its findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the decision of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal. In taking this decision, the Supreme Court noted:
“The Supreme Court of Ukraine, with regard to the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, does not consider it necessary to remit the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court. This would be contrary to the provisions of Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine and sections 2 and 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System of Ukraine” [the Judiciary Act] regarding the status of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and its task to ensure the administration of justice in accordance with the law. It would further cause a constitutionally unacceptable need to quash the lawful decision of the court of appeal. In this regard, the list of possible outcomes of cassation appeals against decisions of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine envisaged in Article 111-18 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of Ukraine is not considered a legal impediment to adopting the decision.”
9.  On 5 March 2007 the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant company.
5.  The applicant company was founded in 1992 and since 1995 has, inter alia, run a driving school, being in possession of the necessary licence issued by the State for that purpose. On 30 June 2005 the applicant company’s licence was renewed with a term of validity of five years. At that time the driving school employed approximately sixty people and had approximately 2,400 students.
6.  On 7 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber conducted an unannounced check on the driving school and discovered that two of its instructors had been replaced and that the State Registration Chamber had not been informed of this within the ten-day time-limit provided for by the law.
7.  On 10 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber issued decision no. 2985, by which the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn in view of the irregularity.
8.  On 12 August 2006 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the State Registration Chamber, seeking the revocation of its order of 10 August 2006. The applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the check carried out by the defendant on 7 August 2006 had been unlawful and that it had announced to the State Registration Chamber the changes to its personnel by letters of 19 August 2005 and 7 February 2006. In that respect the applicant company submitted a copy of its internal register of incoming and outgoing correspondence containing notes of two letters sent to the State Registration Chamber.
9.  On 27 November 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s action, finding that its system of registering correspondence was not sufficient proof. The applicant company appealed against the judgment.
10.  On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
5.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix – Table I).
6.  In all five cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by different domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
9.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Veličná.
6.  On 24 June 2003 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery and remanded in custody on that date.
7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.
8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several others before the Žilina Regional Court.
9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.
10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody. On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention after 24 January 2005 was unlawful.
11.  In the meantime, on 15 June 2005, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 June 2006. On 23 August 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of that decision.
12.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant was released.
13.  In judgment III. ÚS 271/06 of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court referred to its judgments I. ÚS 6/02 and I. ÚS 204/05 (see paragraphs 25-30 below) and held that there existed no justification for the absence of any judicial decision extending the applicant’s detention after 24 January 2005.
14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed his claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress for the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.
15.  In a different judgment delivered on 6 June 2007 (IV. ÚS 10/07) the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, with reference to the reasons for its judgment of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court was of the view that the Supreme Court should have remedied the situation resulting from the applicant’s unlawful detention by ordering his release.
16.  The Constitutional Court granted the equivalent of 1,470 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
5.  On 20 September 2000 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery. Throughout the major part of the proceedings the applicant remained on a written undertaking not to abscond.
6.  Following two remittals of the case for additional investigations, on 31 July 2006 the case was referred to the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”), which on 11 September 2006 repeatedly remitted the case for additional investigations. On 6 November 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above ruling and sent the case to the District Court for trial.
7.  On 12 April 2007 the latter court found the applicant guilty of bribery, sentenced him to a pecuniary fine and a one-year prohibition to hold executive positions and released him from the sentence due to the expiry of the period of limitation.
8.  On 18 June 2007 and 6 May 2008, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.
9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings thirteen hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear and four hearings due to his lawyer’s failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not attended only two hearings due to illness and that he had not been informed of other hearings which he had allegedly failed to attend. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by five months approximately. Twenty-four further hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ or prosecutor’s failure to appear or the absence of the judges. One expert examination was ordered and lasted for about one week. According to the Government, the applicant lodged the appeal in cassation against the decision of 18 June 2007 only on 14 November 2007. According to the applicant, he was served with a copy of that decision with delay.